Radical Edward

fine, ban them too then. I have no problem with that.

the astounding education that has led to the highest level of drug taking and highest level of teenage pregnancy in a long time. oh yes, education is good.

it says in the coroners report if you want to get hold of it. other people took the same pills and they were fine. Yes drinking herself to death is easily preventable, but that isn't the point either. regardless of how she died, she still knew her death was a possibility due to the dangers of street-bought drugs.

alcohol I have already pointed out. You really have to do it to excess to cause alot of damage. Alcoholics are a harder catch, but it is illegal to serve people who are blind drunk, as it should be. I am not differentiating with nicotine at all, I am actually lumping it in with all the rest. Personally I think nicotine needs outlawing too, despite YT2095's rather cool experiments.

does it really matter? the fast is she took it and it killed her, despite the fact that she knew that it may kill her. incidentally, it was a good quality pill. what she died of was drinking too much water to counter the side effects, which then caused her brain to swell, which killed her.

so you are saying that it is a bad idea. Why do you think it is a bad idea, and why would people do something that is a bad idea?

oh well, Leah betts only took one pill, but it doesn't really matter. It is not like either of them sat there all night mashing their heads into oblivion like alcohol deaths. so can we have examples of people who died from smoking a cigarette. hey, even a whole packet, or a pint of beer then?

oh, and you didn't answer why people take these particulat illegal drugs despite the inherent dangers and risks. so why do they do it?

one dose. i.e. a pint. Note also that it is a criminal offense to serve people who are blind drunk. discount allergies of course, or we might as well outlaw peanuts.

well I can think of at least 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1849496.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1848638.stm now can we have examples of people who have died from say, one pint of beer, or one cigarette? it takes a tad more effort to get addicted to alcohol. and so what if nicotine is more addictive than heroin. If anything that is an argument for the criminalisation of cigarettes. and how many people take 60mg of nicotine in one go? I have spent entire nights in nightclubs where you can cut the cigarette smoke with a knife, and still haven't managed to take in 60mg of the stuff yet.

I disagree as a result of the inherent dangers and risks of illegal drugs. so why do they discount the dangers associated with drugs then, which are not present in alcohol, except through really long term sustained usage.

so why would anyone take drugs anyway?

this is just the equivalent of giving razor blades and bottles of sleeping tablets to a manic depressive.

I know I won't, but my girlfriend probably will

excellent

have you ever thought about making a small blast furnace furnace? It is something I have wanted to do, smelt my own iron. No doubt I will push the car out of the garage and fill it with science when I get my own place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm another article from the New York Times: and the article abstract:

you are missing the runabout class i.e. the delta flyer from voyager.

since last thursday. Didn't you get the memo?

really Sayo? I would never have imagined it. ok, I will stop now

science does not do proof like that. However many scientists would agree that the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. There are a number of transitional series which are very clear.

of course it would constitute a layer, however that layer does not have to be a layer all over the earth. The only sorts of those layers are the likes of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) boundary, which is a layer deposited in a global cataclysm caused by a cometary impact and has a high concentration of iridium in the layer (demonstrating it's off-world origins). Other layers are not like this, since for deposition to be occuring in one place, erosion must be occuring somewhere else.

geological column you mean, and no it isn't. the geological column simply points out that some layers are millions of years old. i.e. the set of layers took millions of years to form. This does not mean that geologists think that each layer was formed a fraction of an inch per year. That sort of deposition results in varves, which are very thin layers of sediment deposited each year in lakes and so on, when the organisms such as algae and so on die in the winter, or the layered nature of ice cores, where the summer melts the top layer of ice slightly and winter deposits more snow greating a light dark striped pattern. As has been explained elsewhere most geological layers can be formed quite quickly, for example in a sandstorm, mudslide, volcano and so on.

they can be tertiary.

lies!